Press and daily Dakotaian. (Yankton, Dakota Territory [S.D.]) 1880-1889, 1887-10-29
..iiioners. Atter brlet consultation. the

t%iiionerss After briet consultation, the
.ourt decided to allow each side three
honrs in witch TO MAKE arguments.
The main Contention of counsel for The
anarchists, as brought out in Roger A.
isryorss arguments before the court, the
other duy, and Mr.. fuckers opening ar
guineDt in court, is, that by the Illinois
juror law, and by the action OF the Hi
nois court, the anarchists were convicted
Oh u capital otfepse without due process
OF law, contrary to the guarantees of the
fourteenth amendment to The constitu-
ton; that due process of law implies and
requires a trial by an impartial jury;
thai the Illinois, statute makes competent
a juror with a preconccived and present
opinion as 10 the guilt of the accused;
tnat IL is not, therefore, ''due process Of
law, which abridges sthe privileges or
immunities of citizens of the United
States by denying the accused .sthe
right to a trial by an impartial jury
and is, therefore, unconstitutional. AT
torney General Hunt, of Illinois, in bis
brief submitted to the court, and by his
oral argument, opposed the granting of
the writ of error, and replied to the
points. He insisted, TO warrant the writ
it must appear from the records that
there was d federal question
involved, and that such question
was raised aad decided in
the state our He denied
that these conditions were met. The
record did not show that any federal
question is involved. The prohibitions.
he contended, contained in the first ten
amendments to the constitution, are lin
i~tations on the powers of the federal
government, and not upon the states,
and, so far as the anarchists rely upon
anything contained in those amendments,
they can have no standing in the u
preme court OF the United States. TIL
fourteenth amendment, he argues, was
equally foreign to any right, privilege or
immunity claimed by the petitioners.
That amendment declared that no state
shall make or enforce any law which
shall abridge the privileges or immunia
ties of citizens. OF the United States, nor
shall any state deprive any person of life.
liberty and prosperity without due pro
cess OF law, nor deny to any person
within it's Jurisdiction the equal protec-
tion of the law. But the record showed
that the complaint is not that the state
has made, or is enforcing law which
depriyes the petitioners of any of the
privileges or immunfties guaranteed by.
that section, but that they are deprived
of the rights of an Il construc-
ton of law placed upon it by
trial. Of a court Of the state;
nor claim that In the supreme court at
Ottawa the Illinois jury law was preju-
dical to the the constitution, treaties or
laws of the United States; nor that the
authority of the STATE supreme court was
exercised under it, hut that the law was
valid, and that the court exercised its
| power in violation of that law. The an.
archists were tried in the courts OF that
state, under the laws OF the state, and
that constituted 'sdue process of law
due process Of law meant in accord
ance with the laws of the and. Coming
to the question of the competency of the
Illinois juror with ~pre-conceived opinion
rs to the guilt of accused, Attorney
General Hum insisted that the personnel
of the jury, which tried the accused,
could not properly be submitted to the
court, or be considered by it in this pro-
ceeding. He defnnded the jury laws
OF Illinois. They were constitu-
tional snd in keeping with the
changed condition OF the law. In
these days OF and
telegraphs 1t WAS difficult to find intelli-
gent men who were not familiar with.
every day occurrences. Similar laws
were in force in a number of states. The
position into which we would be driven
by counsel on the other side, who in.
Weighed against the constitutionality Of
these latter day Jury laws, is, that the
principles of common law Of one hundred
years ago, which debarred from jury
duty men who had formed an opinion.
must govern for all time to come. Can
it be, he exclaimed, that we must depend
Oh jurors whose only qualifca-
tions are ignorance or stupid
ity? 1t seemed to him that the
position opposing counsel had assumed
foreshadowed this conclusion. AT 4
o'clock tbs court adjourned, Nj. Hunt
not having finished his argument
The proceedings in the supreme court
in the anarchists appeal were solenn.
All the Judges paid close attention to tho
arguments Of counsel, and several times
interrupted them to ASK questions. Mr..
fuckers address was a surprise to many.
He Is a graceful and easy speaker, and
his address from first to last was clio.
quent and impassioned throughout. At
torney General Hunt made a clear, calm,
and forcibie argument, dealing only with
the cold, abstract propositions of law In
volved IN the case. He will probably bs
followed by Jedge Grinnell, who will
speak for an hour, leaving 1t for Gen.
Butter to present the closing argument.
To Win the America Gun,